For employees in many fields, "outsourcing" is a
dirty word. Airline passengers may now have reason
to feel the same way.
The Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), guardian of air safety, depends on
more than 13,000 private companies and individuals to
perform a variety of safety-related tasks: testing
applicants for pilot's licenses, signing off on the
installation of complex airline equipment, and the like.
As in the private sector, it's a money saver.
But a new report from Congress'
Government Accountability Office (GAO) finds gaps in the
system, with dangerous implications.
The report was requested after
USA TODAY exposed laxities that may have contributed to
the 1998 crash of a Swissair jumbo jet that caught fire
and plunged into the Atlantic off Canada, killing all
229 aboard.
Canadian safety officials
couldn't pinpoint the location of the short-circuit that
started the fire, but the plane's entertainment system
was a primary suspect. The installation of that system
was overseen by a company that the FAA had repeatedly
criticized, even briefly lifting its authorization to do
FAA safety work.
Problems at the company were
plentiful. On one Swissair plane, the inspection firm
certified the entertainment system before it was
functional. And prior to the Swissair job, the FAA found
problems in 11 other safety certifications that the
company had issued.
Now, the GAO has found numerous
other weaknesses in the outsourcing system, including:
•Lax oversight. During the
past seven years, the FAA's Washington headquarters has
evaluated only six of the 18 programs that use
outsourcing. Even when red flags have appeared, the FAA
hasn't always followed up. For instance, in 1999, the
FAA found that inspection firms in the Orlando area had
signed off fraudulently on test results for hundreds of
airline mechanics seeking certificates to work on
planes. The FAA was forced to retest them. Yet, the
mechanics program, which includes 385 private examiners,
has not been evaluated since then, according to the GAO.
•No penalties. Inactive,
unqualified or poorly performing firms are not
identified and removed expeditiously. FAA field offices
told the GAO that the firing process is too
time-consuming. In one case, an FAA engineer said it
took two to three years.
•Overworked inspectors.
Some FAA inspectors had too great a workload to conduct
required surveillance.
The FAA points to the GAO's
conclusion that there are no "systematic safety
problems" in the agency's oversight.
That, however, sidesteps the real
danger: The FAA's spotty oversight leaves it blind to
potential problems. Its lack of follow-up leaves
questionable operators in place to approve pilots,
mechanics and complex aircraft alterations, such as
Swissair's system.
Crashes are rare, and millions of
flights each year operate safely under the system. But
the FAA shouldn't need another Swissair to know that
without quality control, its outsourcing system is
flying blind. |